- Report: #1075138
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: KIDDE RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DIVISION
KIDDE RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DIVISION1016 Corporate Drive Melbane,, North Carolina USA
KIDDE RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DIVISION KIDDE TORT, MENTAL ANGUSH, CONSUMER NEGLECT, UNFAIR PRACTICE, BREACH OF TRUST Melbane, North Carolina
*Author of original report: EMSL ANALYTICAL, Inc., ILLEGAL ACTS
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
KIDDE RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DIVISION
KIDDE RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DIVISION DIRTY HANDS !
KIDDE RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DIVISION (KIDDE) COMPELLED WITH GLENCORD BUILDING CORPORATION, GISTIZIA AGRESSIVO, AND CONSTANCE CINCOTTA ( The Glencords) ( the landlord) IN CRIMINSAL ACTS TO POISON THE TENANTS WITH CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) AND TOXIC GASES .
Almost over 15 Carbon Monoxide Detectors ( First Alert 2-3) the rest all Kidde did not detect High Level of Carbon Monoxide where I lived.
Many times I arrived at Emergency Room( ER) was found High Level of CO , and High Risk at heart attck, due the poison with CO and toxic gases. In August 2011, I sent to Kidde factory Company, 2 CO Detectors for an expertise, because did not detected High Level of Co and me I was almost dying.
Defendant ‘ s attorney did not review with attention the file, because otherwise he could see that on March 19, 2012 I filed in Court the Summons with Amended Complaint in my case Index 18853/ 2009 for personal Injury with CO and toxic gases, where I included and Kidde for contributory negligence. My motion was denied as moot because all lawyers pretended I did not have permission to serve my Amended Complaint. Now, I filed again a motion where I ask permission.
I WILL POST A FEW EXTRACTS FROM KIDDE’S ATTORNEY AFFIRMATIONS ARRIVED IN THE COURT TOO LATE:
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 22.
“By the way of background, KIDDE is a company in the business of designing and manufacturing residential smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. KIDDE had nothing whatsoever to do with the premises in question.”
I consider that the defendant’s attorney did a huge error with this affirmation. Kidde’s product is not to control the toxicity in the subject of premises. For this reasons millions of people buy their product and put their life in the defendant’s Kidde hands. Defendant Kidde, knew to make false advertising here in New York to sell his product. The U. S. Consumer Safety Product said:
“On average, about 170 people in the United States die every year from CO produced by non-automotive consumer products”
Also center for Disease Control and Prevention said;
“Each year, more than 400 Americans die from unintentional CO poisoning, more than 20,000 visits the emergency room and more than 4,000 are hospitalized due to CO poisoning “(http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm).
“. Levels as low as 0.02% carbon monoxide can cause headaches and nausea, while a concentration of 0.1% can lead to unconsciousness “s.
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 27.
“…there was no contract between KIDDE and plaintiff.”
It is not an express contract, but it is, since you ask me to pay for your “secure service”. If I but a subway ticket, I do not have a contract with MTA, but they take responsibility in the price of the ticket.
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 36.
“Under equitable principle, an extension of time to answer is further warranted….”
No one stopped defendant’s attorney to ask extension. For sure he could have. Already I sent a fax to the defendants who did not answer in time, asking if they need some extension. Why defendant’s attorney practice such subjective lamentations ?
To impress the court?
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 37.
“ …the complaint is vague.”
My complaint is strict and concise at my sad experience and make references at all defendants, not exclusive at defendant Kidde, who is the only one who complained this subject.
- Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 41.
“ the plaintiff contended a whole litany[ attorney’s word] of contention about alleged events in the year 2008 …..”
I tried to expose the whole situation, with the contributory negligence from all defendants. It is from 2006 to 2011.
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 42.
“Plaintiff alleges …that the “ cream” contained hexane, butane, and Cyclohexasiloxane.”
Correct. Actually, that cream contained many substances with flag for toxicity. Hexane, butane, and Cyclohexasiloxane, was in huge amount. Also, the literature said that some substances in certain condition are capable to produce Carbon Monoxide. The defendant KIDDE ‘s detectors must to detect the Carbon Monoxide from any source, not only from stove.
Defendant can file a cross –complain to find from where came the source of CO, not to try vehement to annihilate my case and by making me guilty because I trust in their false advertising and promises for a “ safe life”.
I have nothing to do with the secret and criminal source of CO in my rent apartment from 1994 until 2009, when I was forced to abandon because NO ONE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND THE SOURCE OF POISONING. In this way was found dead on June 2011, the tenant from Apt 7, in that building where I used to live, and the tenant under my rent apartment arrived in hospital also as me. Additionally, almost everywhere I move, I have in short time the quality of air is the same and the CO detectors did not detect anything but my blood show High Level of CO , and High Risk of hard attack. .
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 58.
“Plaintiff must with specificity plead four elements:
Defendant Kidde knows that their machine does not work properly. I sent back to Kidde company “ not one” [per lawyers’ affirmation], I sent 3 machines. One in 2009, and two in August 2011, where I asked I asked a copy of expertise. I NEVER RECEIVED ONE or AN EXPLANATION why their two detectors[ ultramodern electric and with battery] did not detect any CO. Additionally, their replacements again did not work properly. Please see my correspondence with defendant Kidde in (EXHIBIT Pg. 4, 5, 6, 7).
Since the defendant’ Defendant Kidde did not send me a copy of his expertise, could be : a)- they try to cover somebody criminal acts who disable the detectors, or defendant Kidde sells with intention detectors which damages, which does not protect the people’s life. My recent research found that:
“It is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause that states: “No Law shall be enacted or enforced that does not provide EQUAL PROTECTION to all Citizens.”
Obviously, a product which says that it is designed to protect “Young, Healthy Adults” while further pointing out in the Liability Disclaimers on all UL-2034 Listed & Labeled C O alarms verifying that they WILL NOT properly protect Millions of our Nation’s most venerable Citizens such as those listed below, including, but not limited to the fetus, pregnant women, infants, young children, the Elderly and all those affected by many serious illnesses or diseases.
A Kidde-Nighthawk Model #KN-COPP-3 says: "Pregnant women, infants, children, senior citizens, persons with heart or respiratory problems and smokers may experience symptoms at lower levels of exposure than noted. Individuals with medical problems may consider using warning devices which provide audible and visual signals for carbon monoxide concentrations under 30ppm”…… “.(F:\Unconstitutional !!.mht)
- c. Of course. Since the defendant Kidde did not send me a copy of their expertise from August 2011, that means they knew somebody disabled the machines with intention, or their product is a consumer product danger.
Also the same report said the small amount of CO for long term can “ Increased suffering due to OXIDATIVE STRESS caused by Low Level Chronic C O Poisoning in persons having any of the following illnesses:
a. Alzheimer's, b. Parkinson's , c. Multi Sclerosis, d. Lou Gherig's Disease e. Cardiovascular Disease, f. Asthma , g. Various other Respiratory Problems (F:\Unconstitutional !!.mht)”.
d. I suggest to Kidde Company and to his lawyer to go to sleep with 2 Kidde CO detectors ultramodern ( with screen, battery and electricity), and to wake up in the middle of the night almost dying, to run to hospital, to be found at high risk at heart attack ,dizzy, vomiting, and carbon monoxide to 3.4 ( the normal limit for nonsmoker are 0-1.5%).
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 59.
“Clearly, there is no New York Tort Cause of Action based upon alleged “disregard of the Universal Declaration of Human Right”.
Objection. The Universal Declaration of Human Right is addressed to all human been. Please se below a partial copy of preamble.
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 61.
“There is no available claim for a plaintiff for contribution.”
“ …The Thirteenth Annual Report of the Judicial Conference to Legislature on the Civil Practice Law and Rules (Feb. 1, 1975) (Legislative History),
which states that Article 14-A was enactedto codify the fundamental rule of Dole v.
Dow, supra. See Legislative History at pp235-236; see also CPLR §1411, Siegel Practice
Commentaries, C1411:1, p. 563 (CPLR §1411 is a natural extension of the principles
of comparative fault that were adopted in Dole v. DowChemical Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143 (1972). supra, which articulated comparative negligence principles among joint tortfeasors in a products liability negligence action).
Also, in See Federal Insurance Comp.v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, 750 F.2d
1095, 1100 (1st Cir. 1983) .
- Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 64 -65.
“Plaintiff’s complaint alleges event(s) and contentions that are clearly time- barred at least as to KIDDE...”
…a three year or less statute of limitation is time barred “
Objections. The most recent intoxication with CO was 3.4 % February 8, 2012.
The defendant Kidde detectors did not detect any CO. Sometimes, in my blood was found zero level of CO.
In conclusion, my body react correct at poisoned environment created by defendant Glencord Building Corporation, and some codefendants in their acerb and disparate desire to cover the crimes done in 15 years rent apartment in Manhattan.
- Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 73. .
“plaintiff further alleges …that a housing inspector wrote a violation on February 19, 2009 that there was no gas supplied. There could not possible be a carbon monoxide issue. ”
Correct. The apartment did not have any connections to any legal source of gas, but I could not stay in apartment without mask on my face, and no more that 10-15 minutes with all windows opened. Since defendant Glencord Building Corp., Gistizia Agressivo and Constance Cincotta ignored 4 Courts’ Order to fix the apartment, since defendant Department of Heath refused for 3 times to come in 2009 to check the quality of air, since the CO detector did not detect any CO, I knew is something wrong. For this I hired a private inspector from Accurate Building Inspector who did an affidavit (EXHIBIT Pg.8. 9). :
“I scanned the apartment with a combusted gas meter which indicated that there were high level of combusted gases, which can include and not limited to carbon monoxide, methane gas and other hydrocarbons….
…It is my recommendation that due to the presence of carbon monoxide or combustible gases that the apartment is not safe for living and constitute a heath risk”..
Interesting, the super was in building and refused to assist at expertise, but opened the basement where the inspector did not find any toxic gases. Only in my rent apartment.
Also, Con Edison issued 4 Red Tags for Carbon Monoxide and gas violations between 2006 to 2008 (EXHIBIT Pg.10, 11, 12 ).
My High Blood Pressure could not be controlled inside the poisoned apartment even staying day and night with all windows opened (EXHIBIT Pg. 13, 14).
Why the defendant’s KIDDE Detectors did not detect anything?
- Defendant’s attorney Affirmation 75.
“ she claims she sent Co Detectors to Kidde in August 2011….over 15 Carbon Monoxide Detectors used by me from 2006 to 2012 did not detect all times the presence of High Level of Carbon Monoxide.”
Correct. In EXHIBIT Pg. 6, 7, I sent in August 2 CO Detectors and batteries used to be tested. Never an answer. Supplementary and intricate, defendant Kidde tried to falsify the truth after one month. First they confirmed to receive from me the machines, and after a months by saying we receive only one.
In EXHIBIT 6, is my letter with the serial number of the CO detectors sent for expertise, and in Exhibit 7, the UPS confirmation receipt. I knew the defendant Glencord Building Corp., Gistizia Agressivo and Constance Cincotta “the good people who poison my life continuously”. already corrupted and defendant KIDDE. Most recently, this “ good people with good intentions ” broke my Oxygen machines”. It is a real complot against me. They stole evidence, harass me, abuse me, destroy files, control my life. In EXHIBIT PG. 10, a picture with a few CO Detectors, and a sample of High Blood pressure in middle of the night.
- Defendant’s attorney said: Affirmation 77.
“ In actually, plaintiff sent one carbon monoxide detector to Kidde for testing bit was tested under lab conditions and worked properly..”
Objection. I sent 3, and for the last two I asked expertise. Where is the result? Why from August 2011 until today April 16, 2012, I do not have a copy of their expertise at my 2 CO Detectors. Why their replacement did not work now?
On December 27, 2011, I send to defendant Kidde a letter where I said:
“ …It is my legal right to know why your products did not detect High Level of CO. Additionally, your company sent me two replacements [ at 1-2 months difference]. Both of them were placed in the same room, on the same wall at distance 1 m. each one. The last one( Model KN COEG3, MFG 2011, 03,13) detected for 3 times CO ( 56ppm on October, 2011, 18 ppm on November 1, 2011, and 12 ppm on December 9, 2011). The second one KN-COPP-3(900-0076), did detect nothing. Why?
I send you in attachment the proof of the two CO Detectors sent on August 2, 2011 for expertise, and so far no any result…”( EXHIBIT Pg. 4).
In my opinion, the “ good people with good intentions ” did not know I had already two CO Detectors to disable the second one also.
- Defendant’s attorney said: Affirmation 79.
“The clear result of such claims packaged in such way is to prejudice any defendant. It deprive defendants of an opportunity to dismiss causes of action …the prejudice would continue, as it would deprive the defendant of any reasonable opportunity at summary judgment
The defendant KIDDE can be free to find who sabotaged their reputation, who disable their products, what happened, and to sue them. It is totally unfair and illegal to complain me by still being alive. WHAT I DID WRONG?
What the 69 y.o. man who was found dead in the same building, who complained the same problems as me did wrong since his alarms also never detected CO?
Why in RegoPark, my new residence was disabled also CO detectors and a woman pass away ?
- Defendant’s attorney said: Affirmation 83.
“To plead a cause of action for punitive damages, “the plaintiff must present facts tending to show so wanton, reckless, or malicious, that their actions are intentional, deliberate, and therefore reprehensible to society as a whole” .
My poor heath talks alone. Two people killed also. So many CO Detectors unable to detect CO High Level speaks the truth that defendant Kidde is guilty; he knew what happened and hide the truth.
Defendant Kidde who has many law suit and recalls for defective product is responsible for :
WHEREFORE, by reason of the facts and visible circumstances stated above, I plaintiff , kindly please Honorable Justice ________ to grand my Notice of Cross Motion for Default Judgments against defendant Kidde Residential & Commercial Division with severe prejudices, and such other and further relief as may be just and proper.”
( teh numbers of Defendant's attorney affirmations could not be copy and paste correctly.
Because of the deliberate, unjustifiable, unethical, without integrity, and bad intentional nature (criminal), of Kidde , I accuse Kidde in accomplices with Glencord and all., for criminal acts, and I pledge for justice!
I wish what happened to me NEVER happened to somebody else again, and every human been to live, and to go to sleep with trust in Carbon Monoxide Detectors.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/12/2013 01:14 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/KIDDE-RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL-DIVISION/Melbane-North-Carolina-27302/KIDDE-RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL-DIVISION-KIDDE-TORT-MENTAL-ANGUSH-CONSUMER-NEGLECT-UNFA-1075138. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.